🤗

In 2024, Nate’s model accurately predicted the exact electoral map.

He doesn’t do any polling. He aggregates other pollsters, weights it based on past performance and then uses other factors (he calls them fundamentals) to produce an outcome. And I think it’s misguided to suggest that Democratic leadership is looking at Nate’s polls to reinforce their own positions.

Here’s a quote from a column he wrote for the NYT

It may even feel as though we’re Ping-Ponging between radically different futures, never quite certain what lies around the bend. Yet on the whole in 2024, polling did not experience much of a miss and had a reasonable year. Ms. Harris led by only one point in my final national polling average. And Donald Trump led in five of seven key states, albeit incredibly narrowly. The final polling averages were correct in 48 of 50 states. The final Times/Siena national poll (including third-party candidates) had Mr. Trump one point ahead. There was plenty of data to support a Trump win.

Remember that the Biden campaign had an internal poll showing Trump winning ~48 states in a total landslide victory, but they maintained that Biden was the best candidate.

I’m reminded of this Nate Silver quote from the election:

Democrats, however — and here, I’m not referring so much Silver Bulletin subscribers but in the broader universe online — often get angry with you when you only halfway agree with them. And I really think this difference in personality profiles tells you a little something about why Trump won: Trump was happy to take on all comers, whereas with Democrats, disagreement on any hot-button topic (say, COVID school closures or Biden’s age) will have you cast out as a heretic. That’s not a good way to build a majority, and now Democrats no longer have one.

Sure, I get it.

The article is somewhat about McBride in that Lauren Boebert made a scene suggesting that “a man” (McBride) was in the public women’s restroom. Then later retracted her statement saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

But the problem with the whole story is that A) McBride has indicated she would comply with House rules and not use a public, women’s restroom and B) McBride has no reason to use those public restrooms because C) most Members use private, single occupancy restrooms and D) members with personal restrooms in their private offices have offered to let McBride use them.

To tie all this together, Boebert created a farcical situation to get attention. It’s classic rage bait. She can win points with bigots because she’s defending the sanctity of women’s restrooms. Plus progressives get mad at her for being bigoted, which makes bigots happy with her.

The only response to this garbage is to not engage

I’m not sure how you got there. My comment was about “the world’s most powerful government” forcing its officials to use public restrooms.

That part is untrue. They (mostly) have private, single occupancy restrooms and there would be no reason for McBride to go into a public, multi occupancy room for either sex. Especially since she has been offered access to other elected officials private restrooms in private offices

So that’s not exactly true.

There are around 40 offices in the Capitol Building, each of which has a private restroom. The rest of the members have offices in nearby buildings.

There are also private, members only restrooms in non-public areas of the building. These are single occupancy rooms.

Multi-occupancy restrooms are for staff and the public.

This whole thing is absurd theater. McBride has been offered access to several private restrooms, so there’s no reason for her to go into a public, multi-occupancy restroom.

Musk doesn’t want the subsidies. He argues legacy OEMs are only competitive with his EVs with the subsidies, so he’ll be able to sell more without the subsidies than he does now.

We do see lagging Tesla sales year over year, so there is probably some truth to this argument

I was looking into DIN rails yesterday. Might be a good option to mount several smaller devices.